linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add dedicated vendor protocols submenu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:54:00 +0100
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	james.quinlan@...adcom.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, peng.fan@....nxp.com,
	michal.simek@....com, quic_sibis@...cinc.com,
	konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, souvik.chakravarty@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add dedicated vendor
 protocols submenu

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:09:45PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:30:52AM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > Add a dedicated Kconfig submenu and directory where to collect SCMI vendor
> > protocols implementations.
> >
> 
> This looks fine. But I would wait until the first vendor protocol is
> ready to be merged to merge this as baseline. Hope that's OK.
> 

Absolutely, I think some vendor protocols currently on the list (beside
their ready-to-merge status) will rebase on this once this is in -next.

What remain to discuss really, it is, as I mentioned offline, if we want
to also group the vendor protocols headers (the one containing the
public protocol ops) somewhere...I think now they are just placed on top
level include/ named like

 /vendor1_scmi_something.h
 /scmi_vendor2_something_else.h

.or (as I now remembered you mentioned offline) just leave as it is for
now and then post a patch on top to shuffle around the headers into some
common include/scmi/ top dir...not sure anyway if it worth...maybe some
header name convention is fine (but I ignore if there are rules about
polluting more or less the top level /include/ dir :D)

I assume also that this mechanism is fine for vendors at this point, since
all the feedback we've got from  them till now was on specific (and very
much welcome) code-reviewed stuff...

Thanks,
Cristian